tv U.S. Senate Sen. Graham on Iran War Powers Resolution CSPAN February 13, 2020 8:40am-8:53am EST
the second largest canyon in the united states after the grant. >> he later twice between 1912-14. she was in amarillo teaching for the public school system and then in 1916-1918 chicken back and got a faculty position here at west texas state. we don't know what the thought and said. this letter book can teach us so much more about this artist, struggling with just the things you can imagine you're still struggling with. it is so relatable. >> joint as saturday at 5:30 p.m. on c-span2's booktv and sunday at 2 p.m. on c-span3 is american history tv as the c-span cities tour takes you to amarillo, texas. >> this week the senate takes up the war powers resolution introduced by virginia senator tim kaine that would limit u.s.
military action against iran. final vote expected today. you some of the floor debate from yesterday. >> today, i would like toy rise in opposition to senator mccain's were power resolution, sj resolution 68. i've had a long-standing opposition to the war powers act. act. i think it's ann unconstitutionl intrusion on the ability of any command in chief to defend the nation and to direct military operations. this statute was passed i think in the '70s. it wasas way to deal with the vietnam war. i've always believed the best thing cogs can do when it comes to dealing with military operations, long-standing conflicts, that it disapproves of is to cut off funding. i think that's what the framers had in mind. the inherent authority of any command in chief to defend the nation is part of our constitutional checks and
balances. the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. we cannot have 535 people planning and diplomat ding our military operations. at 535 would be congress. can you imagine whatld would happen if our nation had to respond in real timend and you d to get 535 members of congress to agree on anything? so this resolution is designed to prevent actions against the islamic republic of iran without congressional authorization. it does acknowledge in the law that we can take defensive action. we can always defend ourselves. that's inherent i think to putting people in harm's way but if think insistent overtime -- consistent -- i have opposed the war powers act being used against all presidents, republican or democrat, and i will continue to do so because i do believe from a national security point of view this will create a nightmare for our country's ability to defend itself. everyf. commander-in-chief has o
have the latitude and the flexibility to engage enemies of this nation in real time and to send messages that are clear. the president has assigned to withdraw from the iranian nuclear agreement early on in his presidency. i supported that action. we aret trying to find a a wayo replace itin with something thas more sustainable and acceptable to the region and the world without boring everyone about these flaws in iran nuclear agreement, i thought it was a bad deal. he gave the i told and his henchmen a bunch of money without having to change their behavior. was tied to the nuclear program, had nothing tora do wih her missiler program or they're being the largest a sponsor of terrorism. now you see iran is acting out since this agreement was signed. it been involved in operations in yemen, lebanon, throughout the entire region they've
captured american sailors on the high seas and humiliated them. their efforts in lebanon put israel's very existence aton rik by flooding lebanon with weapons that can be used to destroy our friends in israel, that the of of terrorism, and i applaud the president for standing up to the iranians. they've attacked the largest oilfield enrolled in saudi arabia. have attacked international shipping in the straits of four moves come at the president decided to use military force -- strait of hormuz -- forces against general soleimani, sanctions by the u.n. and i thought he was a legitimate target of war because he's been pushing war against the united states for decades. we've had at least five, 600 soldiers killed killed in iraqd. from ieds develop an iran that we use inside iraq that were
very, very lethal to american forces. so now we find herself in a position where iran is getting more provocative, and the worst possible thing that congress could do is to send a mixed signal. i want to arrange to know that the trump administration would like a new deal and a better deal and that has to occur through negotiations. if they continue to dismember the region, developed technology that can destroy our friends in israel are one day come to our homeland, they will be met with all options on the table. the authors of r this resolutio. senator kaine has had a long-standing concern about the ritual aumf right after 9/11. it's one thing to try to rewrite it. it's another thing to use the war powers act to tie the hands of the president at a time with our iranian enemies, and here the enemies of the united states
and the region and the world, are becoming more provocative. here many people could be a a great idea what day. the ayatollah is i'm not in my gut i can't imagine why we're doing this now. it makes conflict more likely, not less. if this passes, the president will never abide by it. no president would. it would be vetoed if that's the appropriate way to do it but it's going to t no effect on his ability to conduct military operations but it will have an effect on our enemies perception of the united states will to stand up to iranian aggression. it will have an effect on our allies. can you really trust america? our friends in israel are watching with great concern about this debate. so i will oppose this resolution, , fundamentally flad concept of having a statute that would restrict militaryas operations based on the dr 535
members of congress. we can only have one commander-in-chief, not 535 pick the war powers act as it is been written i think is blatantly unconstitutional. having said that, we find ourselves in a time of choosing in the mideast, as have a need tech relations everyday. what would the americans do if we did this or that? i want the iranians to understand that when it comes to their provocative behavior, all options on the table. and let me tell you a scenario that i fear the most. the iranians now are up against the wall with sanctions. what if they reactivate the centrifuges that have been dismantled or at least mothballed, probably not dismantled, what is the begin enriching uranium at 20%? go from 3.5 to 20%, from 20 to 90 in mice, not yours.
what be the appropriate response? would that be a b hostile act under war powers act? i know this. it would be an unacceptable outcome for the united states. i hope the trump administration is communicating to the iranians that any effort to have nuclear breakout would be considered a threat to the united states, our allies, particularly israel and would be met with military force if the provocation continues. i can't think of a more dangerous scenario in real time in the iranians making a miscalculation that the international community, particularly the united states, will sit on the sidelines as they try to ramp up enrichment to have a breakout toward a bomb. the regime believes they can get nuclear weapon they will be home free. that the world will back off. all i can say to the world is containing the ayatollah withnta nuke is a non-option for me.
if you're in israel, it's not even close to being an option. because what you have t to understand is that there wanting to make a a bomb, not build powr plants for peaceful purposes. they want a bomb for a reason. nothe as an interest policy to guarantee the regimes survivability, to enact a religious agenda that is a dangerous, very radical and very real. and people don't want to believe things like this. after world war i nobody wanted to believe that hitler had a plan that included killing all the jews. people just thought he was bluffing and talking rhetoric wise just to grab more land, and he would be at peace if you taken just one more thing. it's hard for peaceloving people
to imagine that folks like his are actually exist and what do the things they sayay they would do. it's hard for us here in the safety of the united states to imagine that someplace in the mid-east there is a regime that's been on our destruction because of our religious differences. here's what i do believe. if the ayatollah had a a nucler weapon, he would use it. and it would be a competition for the first use. when they go after the sunni arabs, their mortal enemy? after israel? -- would they go after israel, where there's no spot on the plan for state of israel in the radical shiite theology. or would they come after us, the greatest of all infidels? i don't know if it would be one, too, or three but we would be in the top three. i do know this that our arab allies and our israeli friends
can never let that day come. so the best way to prevent the ayatollah from having a nuclear breakout is for the congress and this administration and every other administration to make it clear what happens if you try. we are able to win the cold war because all parties and every president adhered to the idea that we will stand up to the expansion of communism. this is one of those moments in history where i hope we do not miscalculate. the iranians are watching. north korea is watching. the world is watching. i'm hoping that the congress will not miscalculate because if we pass this resolution, the chance of war goes up, not down. the chance of a nuclear breakout becomes almost inevitable.
i would ask all of my colleagues to think long and hard about how he will vote today. you may think nothing really will happen if this passes, because it will never become law as we knowun law to be in the united states. you're right about that. but you're wrong about the signal that sins. it will send a signal that will be picked up by the most dangerous people on the planet, is that we really don't mean it when we sayti when it comes to iran getting a nuclear weapon, it will never happen. madam president, i gild the floor and notice theb. absence f a quorum. >> madam president, , i rise toa firm congress' constitutional authority to declare war and to support the war powers resolution before us. the chilling events of last month bring into stark relief why this resolution is